>>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DS> Well, there'll be safe access to individual variables when perl needs to DS> access them, but that's about it. DS> Some things we can guarantee to be atomic. The auto increment/decrement DS> operators can be reasonably guaranteed atomic, for example. But I don't DS> think we should go further than "instantaneous access to shared data will DS> see consistent internal data structures". This is going to be tricky. A list of atomic guarentees by perl will be needed. $a[++$b]; pop(@a); push(@a, @b); Will these? And given that users will be doing the locking. What do you see for handling deadlock detection and recovery/retry. <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Steven W McDougall
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Chaim Frenkel